Russ1642:Hell, even in Canada we see her face on our currency, her representatives are part of our government, and you still pledge allegiance to the queen to become a citizen.

Just as in the UK, law-making power is exercised by parliament rather than by the Queen. Comparing the power of the monarch to that of the pope is ludicrous, particularly given that a monarch hasn't refused assent for a parliamentary act since 1707.

The biggest impact of Charles as monarch is likely to be an increased focus on the environment, he obviously has the ear of the most politically powerful in the land, not to mention a hugely influential PR position*, and a very focal agenda.

The British monarchy is a system of government in which a hereditary monarch is the sovereign of the United Kingdom and its overseas territories, and holds the now constitutional position of head of state. According to convention, the Queen's powers are exercised upon the advice of her prime minister. She does however possess certain reserve powers which she may exercise at her own discretion.

In the UK, the Queen (or King, when there is a male monarch) has numerous theoretical personal prerogatives. In practice, however, with the exception of the appointment of a prime minister, which is done with every prime minister, there are few circumstances in modern British government where these could be justifiably exercised; they have rarely been exercised in the last century. These powers could be exercised in an emergency such as a constitutional crisis. The monarch's personal prerogatives are:

- The refusal to dissolve Parliament when requested by the Prime Minister.- To appoint a Prime Minister of her own choosing.- The dismissal of a Prime Minister and his Government on the Monarch's own authority.- The refusal of the Royal Assent.- The refusal of the "Queen's Consent," where direct monarchical assent is required for a bill affecting, directly or by implication, the prerogative, hereditary revenues-including ultimus haeres, treasure trove, and bona vacantia-or the personal property or interests of the Crown to be heard in Parliament.

It has long been established in the uncodified Constitution of the United Kingdom that political power is ultimately exercised by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, of which the Sovereign is a non-partisan component, along with the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and by the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Thus, as the modern British monarchy is a constitutional one, the Sovereign's role is in practice limited to non-partisan functions (such as being the fount of honour).

In practice, political power is exercised today through Parliament and by the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The sovereign also holds the title of Supreme Governor of the established Church of England. The monarch holds a weekly audience with the Prime Minister, as well as regular audiences with other members of the Cabinet. The monarch may express his or her views, but, as a constitutional ruler, must ultimately accept the Prime Minister's and Cabinet's decisions.

FarkinNortherner:Russ1642: Hell, even in Canada we see her face on our currency, her representatives are part of our government, and you still pledge allegiance to the queen to become a citizen.

Just as in the UK, law-making power is exercised by parliament rather than by the Queen. Comparing the power of the monarch to that of the pope is ludicrous, particularly given that a monarch hasn't refused assent for a parliamentary act since 1707.

The biggest impact of Charles as monarch is likely to be an increased focus on the environment, he obviously has the ear of the most politically powerful in the land, not to mention a hugely influential PR position*, and a very focal agenda.

*much like Jimmy Savile**

**only different, please don't send me to the tower

I know its the done thing to have a go at Charles (and lord knows he makes it easy) but the guy via the Princes Trust has helped more young people make something of themsleves than anything the last five or six governments have done. If he became king he would have to reign in his agenda a lot.

The royal family keeps 15% of the revenue generated by their estate holding, not to mention the absurd amounts of tourist shmuck bait cash they make off Yanks who come in to gawk at the beefeater hats. They're pretty much a bargain.

Her death will be the end of what little respect the monarchy has left. People get the concept of the Queen of England being a sweet old lady who in an almost quaint way "rules" Great Britain. We know she was once tough just like Victoria many years earlier. But our perception of their power is about identical and seen as a distant memory.All most people know about Kings of England is they are usually holding a bloody sword and shouting for a way out of their self inflicted predicament. That or being pilloried by the groom-of-the-stool in some Merchant Ivory movie. No tough guy images come up to contemporary people for HRH.

You can put a crown on Charles, Henry, the royal butler or Vinnie Jones but all anyone will do is burst out laughing.

It might be a stabilizing factor in British politics that the Sovereign has her reserve powers. She can just toss out a misbehaving Prime Minister to for e a new selection. She can also veto a bill by withholding Royal Assent, but that's largely theoretical.

It's nice to have someone mostly beyond reproach who can smack the Legislative and Executive branches back in line from time to time. Here, that's the Supreme Court.

Myria:It might be a stabilizing factor in British politics that the Sovereign has her reserve powers. She can just toss out a misbehaving Prime Minister to for e a new selection. She can also veto a bill by withholding Royal Assent, but that's largely theoretical.

It's nice to have someone mostly beyond reproach who can smack the Legislative and Executive branches back in line from time to time. Here, that's the Supreme Court.

/doesn't actually know much, so is talking out her butt

To anybody that does know much: Has Elizabeth II ever made any significant use of her reserve powers during her reign?

Norfolking Chance:FarkinNortherner: Russ1642: Hell, even in Canada we see her face on our currency, her representatives are part of our government, and you still pledge allegiance to the queen to become a citizen.

Just as in the UK, law-making power is exercised by parliament rather than by the Queen. Comparing the power of the monarch to that of the pope is ludicrous, particularly given that a monarch hasn't refused assent for a parliamentary act since 1707.

The biggest impact of Charles as monarch is likely to be an increased focus on the environment, he obviously has the ear of the most politically powerful in the land, not to mention a hugely influential PR position*, and a very focal agenda.

*much like Jimmy Savile**

**only different, please don't send me to the tower

I know its the done thing to have a go at Charles (and lord knows he makes it easy) but the guy via the Princes Trust has helped more young people make something of themsleves than anything the last five or six governments have done. If he became king he would have to reign in his agenda a lot.

T.M.S.:Her death will be the end of what little respect the monarchy has left. People get the concept of the Queen of England being a sweet old lady who in an almost quaint way "rules" Great Britain. We know she was once tough just like Victoria many years earlier.

NeoCortex42:To anybody that does know much: Has Elizabeth II ever made any significant use of her reserve powers during her reign?

Yes, but not in the sense of going rogue. She 'chose' Douglas-Home as PM at the behest of a gravely ill Harold Macmillan. She also refused assent to a bill which would have modified her constitutional powers over the war in Iraq, that assent was withheld on the request of the then majority party in government.

ontariolightning:Funny how the americans are commenting on the monarchy when they havent a clue

It be fair, most Canadians don't either. Being a dual citizen, I've heard some pretty dumb things from both sides of the border. Heck, there's an awful lot of Canadians who don't even get that the Queen of Canada and the Queen of Britain are two separate positions held by the same person rather than a single position with a different titles depending on where the person is standing. The only time most Canadians even give a flip about the Queen is when the Governor General does something at the request of a party that the person doesn't like.

Mid_mo_mad_man:Unless I'm wrong doesn't she have the power to dismiss the parliaments of20+ countries? I beleave she did it to Canuckastan a few years back

Australia, in 1975.

The UK also was able to dissolve the government of one of their former colonies in the Carribean a few years back, and institute a transient government. I think the island wasn't fully independent, though.

Benevolent Misanthrope:Russ1642: Considering she probably has several doctors on staff the only reason she'd be sent to a hospital is if they thought it could turn bad quickly.

Or for IV fluids and observation, which I'm sure at her age would be necessary with a bad case of gastroenteritis. Take no chances.

Or they might just have some anti-nausea\anti-diarrhea drug at the hospital they prefer to administer there. Or they might feel she won't just STFU and sleep it off without being in a hospital. There's a thousand non-lethal reasons to stick her in the hospital, especially since she's eighty-six and the doctors probably want to make this relatively comfortable instead of the hell stomach flu usually is. I'm not really panicking either.